In Part I of my interview with Werner Herzog, we discussed his new movie Into the Abyss and its searing exploration of evil in human society. Now in Part II we turn to the world of nature, which Herzog sees as even more dangerous. In Les Blanks' documentary Burden of Dreams, Herzog famously spoke out on the "obscenity" of the jungle, its "harmony of overwhelming and collective murder." In Herzog's documentary Encounters at the End of the World, he expressed skepticism toward "tree huggers and whale huggers," while in Grizzly Man, he documented the fate of a man literally killed by his unhealthy obsession with wild nature. Herzog has even criticized the romanticizing of nature in Avatar, calling the film "an abomination because of its New Age schlock and bullshit."
Obviously Werner Herzog has strong feelings about the proper relationship between humanity and nature. One sees this, for example, in Herzog's stunning documentary Cave of Forgotten Dreams, released this week on DVD. Cave of Forgotten Dreams offers an extraordinary look at the 30,000 - 32,000 year-old Paleolithic cave paintings inside the Chauvet Cave in southern France - currently considered to be the oldest cave paintings in the world. As Herzog told me in Part I of our discussion on the concept of "the abyss," "I've always tried to look deep inside of what we are - deep into the recesses of our existence, of our prehistory - like in Cave of Forgotten Dreams. So it is some sort of a theme that runs through quite a few of my films."
In Cave of Forgotten Dreams, Herzog speaks eloquently of the Paleolithic cave paintings of Chauvet and their relationship to the surrounding landscape:
"These images are memories of long-forgotten dreams. Is this their heartbeat, or ours? Will we ever be able to understand the vision of the artists across such an abyss of time? [Camera shows a massive natural stone arch in the landscape.] There is an aura of melodrama in this landscape. It could be straight out of a Wagner opera or a painting of German Romanticists. Could this be our connection to them? This staging of a landscape as an operatic event does not belong to the Romanticists alone. Stone Age man might have had a similar sense of inner landscapes ..."
Ultimately, if one were to search for a theme that unites Werner Herzog's diverse body of work, it would be that respect for human life and its limits is what holds us back from the brutality of amoral nature - the abyss into which humanity's natural instincts might otherwise plunge. As Herzog told me, he is concerned above all with civilizational breakdown - with how humanity can abandon its own heights to descend into unfathomable depths of madness and annihilation. Equally importantly though, Herzog's love of art, of literature, of joyful exploration of the world and its peoples points to a hopeful way out of the abyss and into the light of day.
Thus, in Part II of this interview, we tackle such colorful subjects as Herzog's anti-romantic views on nature, why he can't help ranting about Avatar, his excitement over his Rogue Film School (in which he teaches such crucial skills as "lock picking" and "neutralizing bureaucracy"), and his belief that Wrestlemania and reality TV offer vital clues to understanding civilization. The interview has been edited for length.
GM: There is this sense in all of your films, whether they're historical dramas or contemporary documentaries, that you wish to explore the extremes. You go from examining the molecular world in scenes from Encounters at the End of the World to these broad vistas of Antarctica or the desert or the Himalayas in your other documentaries. Do you feel that you're part of what could be termed the German Romantic tradition in terms of having this approach to nature - seeing it both as a place of danger and a place of inspiration?
WH: I think that's a common misconception [that] I had an affinity to romantic culture - no I don't. I do not feel much affinity with it. I don't feel at home with it. I'm much closer to poets like Heinrich von Kleist, Georg Büchner who wrote Woyzeck - in the early 1820s he wrote literature that belonged to the early 20th century, that was almost like Expressionism. Or Hölderlin the poet, and he's not a Romantic poet either. He's somewhere completely unique. He's like a continent of his own - not really comparable to other Romantic writers of his time...
And when you look at how I depict nature - wild nature for example in Grizzly Man, it's quite evident that it's a completely anti-Romantic view. Timothy Treadwell who was protecting bears and who was killed and eaten by a grizzly bear together with his girlfriend, he has this kind of watered down Romanticism ... that's what I'm completely against. I would stop the course of the film even and in my comment I would have an ongoing argument with Treadwell: "Here I differ from Treadwell." I do not see wild nature as something benign and beautiful and the bears fluffy like little pets. No, they are dangerous and aggressive and nature itself looks rather chaotic and hostile. You look at the universe - it's very, very hostile out there.
For example in Les Blanks' Burden of Dreams I deliver a speech/rant about the jungle and you'll never see anything so clearly against Romanticism and the romanticizing of landscapes, romanticizing of wild nature. ... It's funny because being a German everyone immediately thinks yeah yeah he must have an affinity with Romantic culture. No, I don't.
GM: I think I see multiple sides to Romanticism. It's such a complex movement. What I was thinking of was not so much the warm, romantic with a small 'r' approach to nature but the approach that sees it as terrifying and overwhelming. For example, even going back into 16th century German art I think of Albrecht Altdorfer with his landscapes towering over very small figures, or of Bruegel's Landscape With the Fall of Icarus with the human figures very small in the distance, on through Caspar David-Friedrich's work [in the early 19th century] where you have the two extremes - you either have humanity dwarfed by nature, as in The Monk on the Seashore or you have humanity standing titanic over nature, as in The Wanderer over the Sea of Clouds. So it was in that sense I was asking about nature. Your quote was very striking [in Burden of Dreams] where you mention the jungle as being "full of obscenity ... nature here is vile and base."
WH: Yeah. Obscenity - that was because Kinski kept saying everything is erotic. And he would hug a tree and fornicate with it. [Laughs] Which is really against my inner convictions.
GM: But this comment about the 'harmony of overwhelming and collective murder' - setting aside Kinski's comments, is that how you would see that particular jungle, or nature in general?
WH: No, you would have to be a little bit cautious. It's a rant 'against' the jungle, but it came at a time of enormous strain on me - weeks and weeks and weeks where there was every single day a major disaster. And when I speak of major disaster I mean disasters like two plane crashes. Two consecutive plane crashes, and on and on and on. So, yes you have to see it in the context. But otherwise, thinking about the jungle, it's not completely wrong what I said. But the ferocity of the rant is in a way a result of enormous pressure of disasters one after the other. ... And it's OK, I still like my rant.
GM: It's achieved a cult status on-line. People enjoy it a great deal.
WH: But let me go back to when you speak of Altdorfer [see image below of Altdorfer's St. George in the Forest] - or Matthias Grünewald. Yes, that's where I feel much more affinity: late Middle Ages. But not Romanticism.
GM: And you have an interest in classical culture as well. I saw from your application for your Rogue Film School that you tell people to read Virgil.
WH: [laughs] I do not tell it - it is mandatory. But it's actually Virgil's - not the Aeneid.
GM: But I love the Aeneid!
WH: Yes, so do I, but it's more the programmatic, big writing about celebrating the Roman Empire, celebrating the Augustean Empire, celebrating the evolution of the Roman republic into an empire. ... [It's]the Georgics - it's about agriculture ... about farming. And the beautiful thing is it does not explain anything - it just names the glory. It names the glory of pruning the apple trees, and it names the glory of the bee hive, and it names the terror of the pestilence invading the stables and killing off all the sheeps and goats. So I make it mandatory.
You've got to be serious if you want to apply to my film school. And applications, by the way, are open right now. I do it infrequently and at various locations whenever I have time for it. Basically Rogue Film School is an answer to an ever-increasing avalanche of young people who want to learn from me or work with me. I try to give a more systematic answer to it. There's a mandatory reading list among other obstacles you have to overcome. You have to send in a written application, you have to send in a short film - and I read and watch every single piece.
And I'm the only one who ultimately makes the choice whom I invite. So it's serious stuff. And of course it's not just Roman antiquity included in the reading list. It includes the Warren Commission Report on Kennedy's assassination, which is a wonderful piece of reading. It's the ultimate crime story. Phenomenal in its conclusiveness and in its intelligence and I keep saying everybody puts it down without having read it. Just read it and you can't get it any better.
GM: The Warren Commission Report, plus the Georgics - plus your reading list also includes Rabelais' Gargantua and Pantagruel and Bernal Diaz's The Conquest of New Spain. What effect do you think this variety of reading has on the filmmakers in your school?
WH: Well, I point one thing out: Read, read, read, read, read, read, read, read, read, read, read read. If you don't read you will never be a filmmaker - a good filmmaker. So, these five or six books could be replaced by five thousand others. I might include a new book I just read that is [an] absolutely beautiful, wonderful piece. It's called The Peregrine, by an English completely unknown person, J.A. Baker, who watches peregrine falcons. It was published in 1967 and there seems to be a new discovery going on of this book. It is phenomenally beautiful in its prose and in the precision of observation and this kind of - this unbelievable quest to meet the peregrine and an ecstasy of observation ... Sometimes the writer lapses into "we": "the peregrine saw us and swoops down and then we swooped down" so it is as if he were morphed into falcon.
GM: Somewhat like Timothy Treadwell [in Grizzly Man] wanting to morph into the grizzly bear.
WH: Yes, but the book has a phenomenal precision and quest and beauty. Can't compare with Treadwell, that was just a misunderstanding, bears as being fluffy pets.
GM: An over-identification with them. Well you make the good point that there are limits between humans and nature, and the Native American man [in Grizzly Man] makes the same point about having a sense of limits.
WH: Yes, I think there was a massive misunderstanding of what constitutes wild nature. It's a very tragic misunderstanding because it cost two human beings their lives and and at the end it cost two bears their lives who had to be killed by rangers. ... The native Aleut people, for example, say very clearly you shouldn't love the bear, but rather you should respect the bear. I think this is a very fine difference. ...
GM: You've said you have an opposition to New Age culture ... You're opposed to yoga, nutritional supplements, self-help [Herzog laughs] and I found a quote of yours [in Planet Magazine] about Avatar - that you considered Avatar "an abomination because of its New Age schlock and bullshit," despite its other accomplishments in terms of technique.
WH: Yes, we should not forget the accomplishments, but it makes me cringe, the New Age sort of content makes me cringe.
GM: So is it the element of pantheism, or that it's this degraded Romanticism?
WH: Well, it has lots of things in it abominable, like degraded Romanticism, also, what did you say?
GM: Pantheism.
WH: Pantheism, yes, yes, yes.
GM: Inspired by Spinoza.
WH: Yeah, making nature as the ultimate God. Whatever. It combines all the stupidities of our time, not only these two stupidities, but it's somehow the embodiment of stupidity and I just can't take it without ranting. [laughs]
GM: So you have greater hope for humanity on its own - or for humanity and civilization perhaps? Or for rational progress? Do you believe in rational progress?
WH: Well, we should be cautious about that. Because the ice of rationality and civilization is kind of thin, this thin ice breaks easily and beneath there is an ocean of barbarism. And you can see it with Germany - a very civilized country with great poetry, philosophy, music and all this and within a very few years it lapses into a state of utter barbarism, and I mean an amount of barbarism we have not seen in millennia.
GM: How do you prevent that in the future from coming back? How do you foster a humanistic culture?
WH: Well, how do we prevent it? I do not know. It has really engaged my thinking. It's a very, very important question. I even traveled to Africa when I was eighteen. I wanted to go ... to the Congo, right after its independence because it was a breakdown of civilization and absence of everything that would be order - tribalism, and killings, [it was] staggering - and I tried to understand what was going on with Germany [by seeing] this, but I actually never made it to the Congo, I became very ill in the Sudan and I barely made it back alive.
GM: Do you think Weimar cinema of the '20s predicted some of the Nazi barbarism? Or was it perhaps more just a symptom of it?
WH: [Exclaims] Maybe, yes, in retrospect, now we can say there was some sort of a vision of something dark coming. Nosferatu [photo above] is the best example, or Cabinet of Dr. Caligari is a good example. But they do not really explain - they had this mood of something impending - very dark coming at us. So cinema sometimes has a way to figure out the mood of something coming at us. So this is why I'm taking a good look at what is going on in mainstream cinema, and taking a good look at what television does, with Wrestlemania, and the Anna Nicole Smith Show, because the poet must not avert his eyes.
GM: It all reveals something - all the details. I look at the cinema and I believe it unconsciously reveals things that may be coming in politics or culture or society. There are very fascinating themes ... I even see Weimar themes returning in some of the cinema today.
WH: Yes, but it's not necessarily a direct parallel to ahead of time what's coming - that would be dangerous. But sometimes these moments in cinema occur where you have the feeling , yes, yes, there is a premonition in the films.
Philip Goldberg: The Vatican Exorcist Wants to Exorcise Yoga
Zorianna Kit: Movie Review: Under Fire: Journalists in Combat
Fortunately, the history of culture shows that great artists, poets, and storytellers have always been willing to incorporate complexity, ambiguity, inconsistency, and self-contradition in their art in order to approximate the greater mysteries that exist on the edge of the rational and the logical.
Herzog might like sitting in a beer hall being a jolly German, and he may have survived the Second World War living in poverty, so what? I have never conceived of "art as being simply an extension of logic: a dry, dull exercise in which A must lead rationally to B." I find your statement although tainted with sarcasm, rather humorous. You have more to learn when it comes to criticizing art, artists, or people. I taught history of world culture and find your summary "that great artist, poets, and storytellers have always been willing to incorporate complexity, ambiguity, inconsistency, and self-contradiction in their art in order to approximate the great mysteries that exist on the edge of the rational and the logical," to be more purple than true. I don't think artists, poets, and storytellers incorporate or even think what you suggest.
Man on the other hand is the one of the two that is quilty of collective murder. Man, unlike nature, does not lie, steal, cheat, exploit, humiliate, or abuse in the way that Men and Women do. Herzog sounds afraid of nature in a way that I have often found those in the art community to be. They may be well read and "educated" but are unable to read and confront nature in a way that nature must be confronted.
Nature does not play games in the way that men and women do. One does not have to deal with hidden motives of lust, greed, and the rest. Nature is honest in a way that more men and women sd. be. Despite the ability to reason, social/religious organizations, lanquage, writing, film, art, music, again and again, man proves that they have only traveled a slight distance from nature and their animal behavior-a very slight distance for some and not at all for most.
But being a self-conscious human is eternally amazing and fraught with paradox, delusion and hypocrisy. Herzog is absolutely no exception and I'm sure he feels it. It bleeds through his work. That's why I prefer his films as whole expressions, much more than what simply comes out of his mouth.
"But being a self-conscÂious human is eternally amazing and fraught with paradox, delusion and hypocrisy. Herzog is absolutely no exception and I'm sure he feels it. It bleeds through his work. That's why I prefer his films as whole expressionÂs, much more than what simply comes out of his mouth. "
Herzog himself has said he doesn't really like theorizing about his work - he likes the films to speak for themselves. However, we are all fortunate that he is willing to do interviews and offer us some apertures into the thoughts and experiences that went into his films. As I pointed out to Lucy0808 below, any interview with an artist is ultimately only a signpost to their larger work. If Herzog's comments are thought-provoking, unexpected, and stimulating, then his films are even more so in every regard.
Have you seen Aguirre: The Wrath of God ???
http://harmony2world.com/2011/12/02/self-awareness-being-yourself-regardless-of-who-is-watching-2/
www.harmony2world.com
Werner finds in the jungle. Pantheism does not make nature God, but recognizes God in nature, everywhere.
I think Werner could benefit from some natural herbs that are good for the body, good for the mind.
Thanks again for a look into one of the most interesting artists of our time.
As for his comment about the thin ice of rationality over the ocean of barbarism, I think it's important to remember what he went through as a boy in war-torn, Nazi Germany. When he was only a few years old the home next to his in Munich was bombed and his mother evacuated the family to a mountain village to keep them safe. Herzog grew up in isolated circumstances and in poverty until his teen years, never having used the telephone or having watched TV. I think his tremendous curiosity about the world comes from those early experiences of privation and isolation.
And as for rationality, no, Herzog does not over-value it. As he said in the interview, and as one can see in "The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser" or "Woyzeck," Herzog is skeptical of human civilization as well. As a devotee of the Middle Ages, Herzog doesn't like the Romantic culture of the late 18th/19th century in which pantheism (inspired by Spinoza) was all the vogue. Interestingly, many Romantics/pantheists returned to Christianity (Wagner being the most famous example of this).
I think Werzog is always provacative and opens up new ways or old ways of seeing things. I do think nature that which we are a part of and not separate can be and is very dangerous, but at the same time is very beautiful. The diversity and interdependence of life systems and the amazing ways that exists or has is beautiful. Yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. As a scientist, I cannot but say these things are beautiful. However, to make it cute and romanticised is all about us and nothing about nature. Werzog has a point in that. What needs to be brought out is that we are part of it all and not separate. Everything about us depends on most of these ecosystems being there and healthy. We benefit by the diversity of life on this planet. We are not a creature that lives in spaceships crossing the universe and that lives only off of that which we grow on our ships. I don't think we can afford to look at nature that is around us as only dangerous. It is what has made us and still provides for us whether we wish it to be or not.
There's a dichotomy in Herzog's work, which is what makes him such a fascinating filmmaker: for all that he sees humans as being apart from nature, he also continually celebrates those who wish to commune with nature and explore its beauty and wonder. It's important to study what a filmmaker says about her or his work, but it's also important to look at the films themselves, because they'll often depict things - such as Herzog's real love of nature and the world - that they don't necessarily always articulate in interviews. That's why any interview with an artist is ultimately only a signpost to their larger work. My hope is that people will take this interview (and the many other interesting interviews Herzog has done) as a starting point to explore his many brilliant and enigmatic films.
Take care.
And good point about ancient cave painting originating in shamanic rites. Mircea Eliade's "Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy" goes into quite a bit of this. He finds the origins of epic and lyric poetry in shamanic rites as well. As for the Christian Resurrection, which itself draws on older Near Eastern resurrection myths of Osiris, Persephone, Adonis, etc., certainly it could have its origins in the trance flights of shamans to and from the spirit world.
However, I would really have to disagree with you on "Avatar." I found the film's depiction of tribal society impossibly shallow. I lived on Borneo for a year and went on trips through the rainforest and stayed in tribal longhouses, and their lives are actually far more complex than anything depicted in the film. "Avatar" provides a utopian depiction of a tribal community in which there is no inequality or injustice, and that's just not the case in the real world. The tribal society in "Avatar" has a made-up language with only 600 words (fewer than most real tribal languages) and no art or literature. Cameron's vision of tribal life is just another over-simplified vision of a guilt-ridden Westerner with little relation to the amazing complexity of real tribal cultures around the world.
Also, ...making nature as the ultimate God ...(is)..the embodiment of stupidity".
No "man as part of Nature" considered, and nothing on all life as possibly a part of what we call "divinity" or some higher level of being either. No meat here at all for a Deist. Herr Herzog may be very artistic, but he appears quite shallow as well.
What makes his films so compelling is that he is not willing to give easy answers about either humanity or nature, and he really eschews limiting ideological categories. He obviously does love nature and spends a great deal of time depicting its beauty in his numerous nature documentaries - and he also shows his great enjoyment in tracking down his fellow human beings who similarly venture into nature seeking new and mystical experiences. Just look at "The White Diamond" or "The Wheel of Time."
However, many people don't understand how Herzog is shaped by his own German background and by the very ancient religious, literary, and artistic tradition that underlies it that does indeed see man as apart from nature. His comment that he feels the most affinity with the artists of the late Middle Ages is especially interesting in this regard.
I appreciate the fact that Herzog gives us a unique and strongly individualistic perspective that escapes the dull and predictable ideological confines of much of today's filmmaking. Herzog is a true artist and individual, and for that he is irreplaceable.
Herzog actually loves nature and cares about the environment, but he is also in awe of its danger and power and does not agree with those who overlook it or falsely romanticize it.